LP modeling languages for personal computers: A comparison

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast the modeling capabilities of seven algebraic modeling languages (ML) available today, namely, AMPL, GAMS, LINGO, LPL, MPL, PC-PROG and XPRESS-LP. In general, these MLs do an excellent job of providing an interface with which the modeler can specify an algebraically formatted linear program (LP). That is, each ML provides a substantial improvement in time and convenience over the matrix generator/report writers of the last few decades. Further, each of the MLs provides: (1) significant flexibility in model specification, instantiation and modification, (2) effective and efficient conversion from algebraic to solver format, and (3) an understandable and, for the most part, self-documenting model representation. In addition, each of the MLs is constantly being updated and upgraded to provide additional capabilities sought by practitioners and users. However, as shown in the fifteen tables provided in the body of this paper, each ML has its own set of competitive advantages. For example, the most integrated environments (i.e. those integrating the modeling language with a full-screen editor, data import capabilities and a solver) are provided by LINGO and PC-PROG. The most user-friendly interfaces are provided by MPL and PC-PROG, both of which provide window-based interfaces to create models and pop-up windows to display error messages; MPL also uses pull-down menus to specify various operations, whereas PC-PROG uses function keys for operational control. Package costs are led by a current (March, 1991) introductory offer from LINGO. Modeling effectiveness, especially with respect to flexibility in specifying arithmetic statements, is led by GAMS and LPL. Model compactness, as measured by the number of lines required to specify a model, is led by AMPL, LPL, MPL and PC-PROG; LPL, MPL and PC-PROG also provide context sensitive editors which automatically position the cursor where the error was detected. And finally, the most comprehensive user documentation is provided by GAMS, whereas GAMS, LINGO and LPL provide extensive libraries of sample models for those users who learn by example.     

Synthesis of N-substituted piperazinyl carbamoyl and acetyl derivatives of tetrahydropapaverine: potent antispasmodic agents

The synthesis and structure-activity-relationship (SAR) for a series of N-substituted piperazinyl carbamoyl 7-15 and piperazinyl acetyl 18-26 derivatives of tetrahydropapaverine have been carried out. The general synthetic methods of carbamoyl tetrahydropapaverine analogues involve N-substituted piperazines and carbamoyl imidazole tetrahydropapaverine as starting materials. Another route for synthesizing these compounds, involving the formation of carbamoyl imidazole piperazine has also been explored. Acylation of tetrahydropapaverine followed by substitution with various piperazinyl moities afforded the acetyl tetrahydropapaverine derivatives. Variously substituted piperazines have been used to monitor the effect of electron releasing and electron withdrawing substituents upon the antispasmodic activity of the molecules. Effect of varying electron densities on the antispasmodic activity, by altering the position of these groups on the benzene ring has also been monitored. Pharmacological methods involve the in vitro antispasmodic activity studies on a freshly removed guinea pig ileum using a force displacement transducer amplifier connected to a physiograph. Among the analogues synthesized in the present study, a promising compound 7, a potent muscle relaxant as compared to papaverine has been obtained.     

Base catalyzed cyclization of N-aryl and N-alkyl-O-propargyl carbamates to 4-alkylidene-2-oxazolidinones

The base catalyzed cyclization of N-aryl and N-alkyl-O-propargyl carbamates is studied in detail. The effect of various bases and solvents on the efficacy of this cyclization reaction is analyzed and a new base-solvent system (LiOH in DMF) for effective cyclization of these carbamates is reported. A number of differentially substituted O-propargyl carbamates were cyclized to the corresponding 2-oxazolidinones under these conditions. The reaction conditions reported here are mild and no side reactions were observed in any of the substrates studied. A propargyl carbonate group was unaffected during the course of the cyclization of the O-propargyl carbamate group. The propargyl carbamates were prepared from the corresponding alkyl or aryl amines and the corresponding propargyl chloroformate, resulting in oxazolidinones diversely substituted at the nitrogen atom. N-Aryl-O-propargyl carbamates cyclized readily to the corresponding oxazolidinones with LiOH in DMF, whereas N-alkyl-O-propargyl carbamates reacted slowly under the same conditions. O-Propargyl carbamates substituted at the 1-position tend to cyclize faster whereas those substituted at 3-position cyclize considerably slower than the unsubstituted carbamates.